SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

50 lacs already paid by the buyer to the seller ? 6(ii) The Assessing Officer further observed that as per provisions of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that when price

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

50 lacs already paid by the buyer to the seller ? 6(ii) The Assessing Officer further observed that as per provisions of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that when price

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. PCIT

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD,,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-5(1),(NEAC), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (2022) issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The relevant extract thereof read as follows: '6.56 The introduction of the Other Method as the sixth method allows the use of 'any method' which takes into account (i) the price which has been charged or paid or (ii) would have been

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 50C of the Act,as against 1.14 crs shown by the assessee, on the basis of information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Estate Officer GMADA, who submitted as under: Size of Plot Transfer fees charged Total price as per transfer fees 200 sq yards 1,25,000/- 50

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

transfer of the capital asset has not been presented for registration. The expression 'assessable' would permit the Revenue authorities to apply what is popularly referred to as Jantri rates with respect to the land in question for the purpose of section 48 of the Act with aid of deeming fiction contained in sub-section (1) of section

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

50 of the judgment\nwhich make the following reading:\n\"49. As discussed hereinabove, Section 23(1-A) provides for additional\namount. It takes care of the increase in the value at the rate of 12% per\n\n23\n\nannum. Similarly, under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act there is a provision for\nsolatium which also represents part

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

50% on an adhoc basis holding that the assessee had failed to provide name, address and PAN of the parties. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but for a different reason, holding that the impugned expenses were capital in nature giving enduring benefit to the assessee having been incurred on products which were yet to be launched

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

50% on an adhoc basis holding that the assessee had failed to provide name, address and PAN of the parties. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but for a different reason, holding that the impugned expenses were capital in nature giving enduring benefit to the assessee having been incurred on products which were yet to be launched

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

50% on an adhoc basis holding that the assessee had failed to provide name, address and PAN of the parties. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but for a different reason, holding that the impugned expenses were capital in nature giving enduring benefit to the assessee having been incurred on products which were yet to be launched